For ROBERT C. TAPELLA, in his official capacity as Public Printer and Chief Executive Officer Government Printing Office, Defendant: Jeremy S. Simon, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.

OPINION

Page 136

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge.

The plaintiff, Kimberly Warner, who is currently employed as the Chief of the Digital Print Center (" DPC" ), a unit of the Plant Operations Division of the Government Printing Office (" GPO" ), [1] initiated this action against GPO's Chief Executive Officer, in his official capacity, alleging a " pattern of sex discrimination and retaliation" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Complaint, ECF No. 1 (" Compl." ), ¶ 1. [2]

Page 137

Over the last decade, this plaintiff has had a fraught employment history with GPO, involving her filing five formal Equal Employment Opportunity (" EEO" ) complaints about multiple decisions made by GPO that the plaintiff alleged reflected discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of her. The wrongful actions alleged by the plaintiff in the instant action arise from three of these EEO complaints and include denial of her applications for more senior management positions, her requests for training opportunities, committee assignments, and a private office; the downgrading of two performance evaluations from the highest to second highest rating; understaffing, the noise level and equipment leasing at DPC; and the reassignment of three DPC employees, a management decision which the plaintiff views as a removal of certain of her supervisory functions. The defendant has moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff's claims are fatally flawed because, inter alia, the alleged wrongful actions do not constitute adverse employment actions, are untimely, and/or were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reasons, which the plaintiff cannot show are pretextual. For the reasons explained below, the defendant's pending motion for summary judgment is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

After graduating from high school and working as a cashier and ticket seller for Tour Mobile Sightseeing, the plaintiff, in 1989, began her employment with GPO, where she initially worked as a payroll technician in the Finance Department. Compl. ¶ 6; Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 21 (" Def.'s Mot." ), Ex. 1 (Deposition of Kimberly Warner (Oct. 17, 2011) (" Pl.'s Dep." ), ECF No. 21-5, at 9; [3] Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (" Pl.'s Opp'n" ), ECF No. 24, at 2; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 3 (Declaration of Kimberly Warner (Apr. 16, 2012) (" Pl. Decl." )), ECF No. 24-3, ¶ 2. Approximately six years after joining GPO, in 1995, the plaintiff began working as a graphic process operator in the Phototypesetting and Processing Section of GPO. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Stmt. of Mat. Facts Not in Dispute, ECF No. 24 (" Pl.'s Facts" ), ¶ 1; Def.'s Stmt. of Mat. Facts Not in Dispute, ECF No. 21 (" Def.'s Facts" ), ¶ 1; see also Compl. ¶ 6. In 2001, she was promoted to Supervisory Graphic Process Operator. [4] Pl.'s Facts ¶ 9; Def.'s Facts ¶ 9; see also Compl. ¶ 6. The plaintiff has not attended college nor participated in any apprenticeship program to become a journeyperson in printing. Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 21-5, at 18, 23 (plaintiff explained that she sat for the apprenticeship program test on one occasion but " did not place high enough" for acceptance into the program).

In 2005, the Phototypesetting and Processing Section was renamed the Digital Print Center (" DPC" ), and, in March 2005, the plaintiff became the first Chief of the DPC. Pl. Decl. ¶ 3. Also in 2005, the DPC was moved from the Electronic Photocomposition Division (" EPD" ), which is now called " Pre-Press," into the Bindery Division of GPO. Def.'s Mot., Ex. 2 (Deposition of John W. Crawford (Sept. 30, 2011 &

Page 138

Oct. 14, 2011) (" Crawford Dep." )), ECF No. 21-6, at 21, Def.'s Facts ¶ 4; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 4 (" undisputed." ). DPC is a graphic processor operation that does pre-press, printing, and finishing work, including, according to the plaintiff, binding. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 6; Def.'s Facts ¶ 6. Unlike other Bindery units, however, DPC employees do not need to be craft journeypersons. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 6; Def.'s Facts ¶ 6. In March or April of 2005, the plaintiff was promoted to the " newly created position of Chief of DPC." Compare Pl.'s Facts ¶ 11 (indicating that plaintiff had held title of Chief of DPC " since the position was created on March 9, 2005" ) with Compl. ¶ 6 (indicating that the plaintiff was promoted to this position in " April 2005" ) and with Def.'s Facts ¶ ¶ 11-12 (indicating that plaintiff obtained this title " as part of the settlement," which occurred in March 2007). [5] In this position, " she is currently paid at the same rate paid to an Assistant Foreperson." Def.'s Facts ¶ 11; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 11.

In her role as Chief of DPC, the plaintiff " supervises skilled subordinate employees performing both blue-collar and white-collar work, ensures that division goals are met, monitors production of GPO materials, troubleshoots any problems in the DPC and two offsite locations, and otherwise oversees the safe operation and maintenance of the DPC." Compl. ¶ 7. The plaintiff " is in charge of scheduling, assigning work to, training, evaluating, and monitoring employees across three shifts and serves as the selecting official for all vacancies within the DPC." Id. Her " position requires expert knowledge in highly technical machinery, computers, and software applications; GPO and DPC procedures, work standards, and workflow; and GPO personnel policies, functions, and operations." Id.

A. 2005 Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints and 2007 Settlement

Shortly after becoming Chief of the DPC, the plaintiff filed her first formal EEO complaint with GPO on April 27, 2005, alleging gender discrimination by Robert Schwenk, Directing Manager of Plant Operations, and Dannie Young, Superintendent of the Electronic Processing Division (" EPD" ), because " she was being paid less than her male coworkers," Compl. ¶ 8, and " being paid significantly less than the male supervisor she replaced," Pl.'s Opp'n at 2; see also Pl. Decl. ¶ 9; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 4 (EEO Complaint of Discrimination No. 05-16, filed April 27, 2005), ECF No. 24-4. Six months after filing her first complaint, the plaintiff filed a second formal EEO complaint on October 18, 2005, alleging that GPO had retaliated against her for filing her first complaint. Compl. ¶ 8. In 2006, the plaintiff's two EEO complaints were consolidated, and in March 2007, the plaintiff reached a settlement with GPO under which the plaintiff " received an increased hourly wage" equivalent to that of an Assistant Foreperson, and " a lump sum payment." Id. ; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 5 (EEOC Settlement Agreement, Warner v. James, EEOC No. 100-2005-00191X (Mar. 12, 2007)), at 2-5; Pl. Decl. ¶ 9. According to the plaintiff, management personnel supervising her during the key period at issue in the instant complaint " were all aware of this protected activity," including Walter Wingo, who was her immediate supervisor as of early 2008, Katherine Taylor, who was her second-level supervisor, and John Crawford, who was her fourth-level supervisor. [6] Pl.'s Opp'n at 2; see also Pl.'s

B. Allegations of " Obstacles to Advancement" Following the 2007 Settlement

The plaintiff alleges that she faced " obstacles to her professional advancement" after the settlement of her EEO complaints in 2007. Compl. ¶ 1. These alleged obstacles take myriad forms, including allegedly lower-than-deserved performance evaluations in 2007 and 2008, non-selection for promotion, poor working conditions, denial of professional opportunities, and reduction in supervisory responsibilities. The plaintiff's criticisms of multiple management decisions and activity from 2007 through 2010 could devolve into analysis of workplace minutia but are only generally described below with the key facts underlying her claims of gender discrimination and retaliation.

1. 2007 Performance Evaluation

In the fourth quarter (" Q4" ) of 2007, GPO implemented a bonus program for supervisors, including the plaintiff, and, in connection with that program, performance ratings were issued with respect to that single quarter. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 16; Def.'s Facts ¶ 16. On January 7, 2008, Ms. Taylor, who had become the Superintendent of the Bindery and the plaintiff's second-level supervisor in December 2007, shortly before the ratings were given, showed the plaintiff her performance rating for Q4 2007. Pl.'s Facts ¶ ¶ 14, 17; Def.'s Facts ¶ ¶ 14, 17. The plaintiff points out that this was " her first evaluation since the March 2007 settlement." Compl. ¶ 16. This was also the first time that monetary awards were tied to performance ratings, and " achieving 'outstanding' was a little more difficult because goals had to be met to get the money." Def.'s Mot., Ex. 4, Affidavit of John Crawford (Mar. 13, 2009) (" Crawford Aff." ), ECF No. 21-4, ¶ 5; see also Crawford Dep., ECF No. 21-6, at 58. [7]

The plaintiff received an " excellent" rating, one rating below the highest rating of " outstanding," which she had " consistently received" before then. Compl. ¶ 16; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 18; Def.'s Facts ¶ 18. Although the plaintiff immediately disputed the rating, she nevertheless signed it at the direction of Ms. Taylor, who indicated that without the plaintiff's signature, she would not obtain her bonus. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 17. The plaintiff says that she signed the document to " acknowledge[] seeing the evaluation, not that she agreed with it." Id.[8] The

Page 140

plaintiff tried to discuss her evaluation with her fourth-level supervisor, John Crawford, who was Ms. Taylor's predecessor as the Bindery Superintendent until he became the Production Manager in charge of the Bindery and five other divisions. Id. ; Def.'s Facts ¶ 13; Crawford Dep., ECF No. 21-6, at 16-17 (as Production Manager, Mr. Crawford supervises " approximately a thousand people," in six divisions, including " press, pre-press, plant planning, binding, production[,] engineering" ). [9] Mr. Crawford, however, refused to discuss the evaluation with the plaintiff. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 17.

According to the plaintiff, she only received a copy of the evaluation form in March 2008, after it was processed by GPO's Human Capital unit. Id. The plaintiff alleges that the form contained " irregularities," because erasure marks indicated that her scores had been lowered. Pl.'s Opp'n at 4-5. While the plaintiff received checkmarks in the boxes for a " fully satisfied" rating for eight of nine listed Job Elements and in the box for an " outstanding" rating for the ninth, she alleges that the boxes for " outstanding" on five of the Job Elements had been checked, erased, and changed to " fully satisfied." Pl.'s Opp'n at 4; Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 24-1, at 62; Crawford Dep., ECF No. 24-6, at 352-53; Compl. ¶ 16. In addition, in the " Summary Rating" section of the form, she received an " excellent" rating, but she alleges that the box for an " outstanding" rating had been checked, erased and changed to " excellent." Id.

Another " irregularity" of the 2007 evaluation, according to the plaintiff, was that it was signed by Robert Allegar, based on " materials that [the plaintiff] submitted to show that she had met each Job Element." Pl.'s Opp'n. at 5. The plaintiff claims, however, that Mr. Allegar " had worked outside the building for the previous year and had not supervised [the plaintiff] during that time." Compl. ¶ 16; see also Pl.'s Opp'n at 5. The ratings were also reviewed by Mr. Crawford, who could not recall specifically why the plaintiff was rated " fully successful" rather than " outstanding" for eight Job Elements, but understood that the plaintiff had not met some metrics under her goals. Pl.'s Opp'n at 5; Crawford Dep., ECF No. 24-6, at 94; Crawford Aff., ECF No. 21-4, ¶ 5 (" [S]he had some metrics but they were not what the goal said." ). Mr. Crawford explained that " [n]obody in Bindery received an 'outstanding' rating," not even himself. Crawford Aff., ECF No. 21-4, ¶ 5.

The plaintiff alleges that " [e]ach rating translated to a number of points, which were used to calculate [the plaintiff's] performance bonus." Pl.'s Opp'n at 4; see also Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 13 (Supp. GPO Form 2970: Performance-Based Award Point Calc. Sheet for Kimberly Warner for Oct./Nov. 2007); Pl. Decl. ¶ 28. The plaintiff was paid a bonus for fiscal year 2007 for the " excellent" rating she received. Declaration of Stephanie F. Smith (" Smith Decl." ) (June 29, 2012) (filed under seal), ECF No. 29, ¶ 3. If the plaintiff had received the " outstanding" rating that she says she deserved, her bonus would have been increased by at most $217.50. Id.

2. 2008 Non-selection for Position

The plaintiff alleges that, after her 2007 EEO settlement with GPO, she has applied

Page 141

for seven positions within GPO at the " PG-13" and " PG-14" pay grades. [10] Compl. ¶ 13. For each of the positions, including Passport Manager, In-Print Printing Service Specialist, and Assistant to the Production Manager, the plaintiff " was placed on the Best Qualified List . . . but was only interviewed for one and was not selected for any of the positions." Id. Instead, she alleges that men " were selected for all but one of the positions." Id. The only non-selection expressly contested in her claims, however, is that for the position of Assistant to the Production Manager. See Compl. ¶ ¶ 31, 35. Thus, this is the only unsuccessful application process specifically at issue in this lawsuit. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 4 (" At issue here is Ms. Warner's February 2008 application to be Assistant to the Production Manager." ). Consequently, description of the application and selection process for this position is necessary to evaluate this aspect of the plaintiff's claims.

In February 2008, a vacancy for an Assistant Production Manager position (second shift) was announced under vacancy announcement 08-480, Pl.'s Facts ¶ 26; Def.'s Facts ¶ 26, and the plaintiff applied for it, Compl. ¶ 14. The major responsibilities of this posted position included: (1) " direct[ing] all shift 2 functions necessary to accomplish pre-press, press and post-press work; " (2) " manag[ing] production activities within the various Production Department divisions to ensure that production deadlines are met and commitments fulfilled, and that optimum quality of products and efficiency of operations are maintained; " (3) " start up the Federal Register, to ensure that it's out of pre-press and into plate and press; " and (4) putting out the Congressional Record, which is " equivalent to putting out a newspaper every day." Pl.'s Facts ¶ ¶ 27-28; Def.'s Facts ¶ ¶ 27-28.

The plaintiff was among three individuals listed as eligible for consideration for the vacant position. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 29; Def.'s Facts ¶ 29. From this list, Mr. Crawford, who was the selecting official, selected Richard Lewis. Id. The plaintiff concedes that Mr. Lewis had 37 years of experience in the printing trade and, further, does not dispute that he had a broad range of experience in the operations of GPO, including work in positions involved in the processing of the Congressional Record and Federal Register as well as directly with pre-press and press, and otherwise had been exposed to various manufacturing requirements and every kind of job that comes through the Production department. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 30; Def.'s Facts ¶ 30. She contends that she had " comparable qualifications" to Mr. Lewis, however, and that " Mr. Crawford's justification for hiring Richard Lewis" was not based upon his belief that Mr. Lewis was best qualified but instead was motivated by retaliatory and discriminatory motives against the plaintiff. Pl.'s Facts ¶ ¶ 30, 32.

The plaintiff further contends that she should have been given the opportunity to fill temporarily the Assistant Production Manager position, just as Mr. Lewis was given this opportunity for three months, allowing him to " gain[ ] valuable experience," before he was promoted to the position. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 32; Compl. ¶ 14.

Following her non-selection for the Assistant Production Manager position, the plaintiff filed an informal EEO complaint, on April 9, 2008, alleging gender and race discrimination, and retaliation for past EEO activity on the basis of, inter alia,

Page 142

the defendant " fail[ing] to promote [the plaintiff] to the Assistant to the Production manager position and . . . lowering . . . her 2007 performance evaluation." Compl. ¶ 23. Since there was no resolution of her informal complaint, the plaintiff filed, three months later on July 3, 2008, her third formal EEO complaint. Id.

3. Complaints About Working Conditions

The plaintiff complains about multiple aspects of her physical working conditions, contending that these working conditions were retaliatory and discriminatory. She predicates this contention, at least in part, on a comment allegedly made in November 2007 by Mr. Crawford, who was then the Production Manager in charge of the Bindery and other GPO divisions and was aware of the plaintiff's earlier EEO settlement. [11] The plaintiff was not present at the meeting when the alleged comment was made but understands from another person that Mr. Crawford indicated " that he was going to make things difficult" for her and that he was planning " to let the dogs out" on the plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 18; see also Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 21-5, at 38-39 (plaintiff testifying that Mr. Young, who attended the meeting at which Mr. Crawford allegedly made this statement, repeated the statement to plaintiff in a telephone call, but she took no notes of the comment). Mr. Crawford denies ever having made such a comment, stating " I don't use terms like that," and further testified that he first learned of this allegation during his deposition. Crawford Dep., ECF No. 21-6, at 331.

i. Workplace Noise and Other Inconveniences Absent a Private Office

The plaintiff alleges that, in 2007, " excessively loud non-DPC machinery was put into the DPC." Compl. ¶ 19. According to the plaintiff, the non-DPC machinery " is so loud that a safety inspector concluded that the noise level in the DPC is unsafe and advised [the plaintiff] and her employees [to] wear ear plugs." Id. The plaintiff alleges, however, that " given the nature of DPC's business, which includes consulting with customers and vendors over the telephone and servicing walk-up customers, wearing ear plugs is often not feasible" and that " [n]o other actions have been taken to remedy the problem." Id.[12]

Related to the noise issue, the plaintiff alleges that she has been deprived an office and that, consequently, she " faces unnecessary obstacles to performing [her work] tasks because she does not have a private work space." Compl. ¶ 20. The plaintiff complains that while her work space is situated " in the middle of the DPC [work] area," " [a]ll Forepersons, Assistant Forepersons, and Group Chiefs in the Bindery Division have offices." Id. She alleges that she " has been promised an office on several occasions but has never received one." Id.

Mr. Crawford indicates that he agrees with the plaintiff about having her own office, but that space for Bindery personnel

Page 143

has been used by others, noting that space " planned for the offices" was used for equipment and a " Bail-Out Commission." Crawford Aff., ECF No. 21-4, ¶ 9; id. ¶ 10 (" I do still think Kim should have her own space . . . . We had been told that some other things have priority." ).

Notwithstanding her workplace conditions, the plaintiff has been able to perform her duties at an " excellent" and " exceeds expectations" level, although she contends that she is hampered in being able to perform " at peak efficiency." Pl.'s Facts ¶ 39; Def.'s Facts ¶ 39. She does not appear to dispute that her work area contains a desk, computer, and a file cabinet, with additional access to a locked cage for storage of sensitive files and to conference rooms for private meetings and telephone calls. Def.'s Facts ¶ 39; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 39. Nevertheless, the plaintiff complains that since her " computer is visible to anyone walking near her," she is unable to work on confidential matters on her computer when other employees are present, and that she has to find meeting space in other offices or rooms, including " on multiple floors." Pl.'s Facts ¶ 39.

ii. Understaffing of DPC

The plaintiff alleges that " DPC is not adequately staffed, resulting in [the plaintiff] and her staff being overworked, unable to take time off, and under intense pressure." Compl. ¶ 21. As a result of the understaffing, the plaintiff alleges that she " has had to step in to do printing work that would otherwise be done by her subordinate employees, making it difficult for her to complete her supervisory duties." Id. To remedy the understaffing, the plaintiff " has been trying to fill vacancies in the DPC since 2006," id., and, in fact, in 2007, filled one of 5 approved positions for Océ operator vacancies. Id. The defendant points out that the plaintiff had the opportunity to fill all of the Océ operator positions in 2007, " but chose not to make a selection from the certificate of eligibles issued" for these vacancies, except for one. Def.'s Facts ¶ 40. The plaintiff explains that " there were not enough qualified individuals," and that the remaining four vacancies were cancelled in May 2008 before she could fill them. See Pl.'s Facts ¶ ¶ 40-41. According to Ms. Taylor, during the 2009 fiscal year budget process " headcount was being reduced across the board," and she " could not make a business case to keep the [Océ ] operator vacancies in the budget when the DPC had operated for a period of time without those vacancies being filled[.]" Def.'s Facts ¶ 41; Def.'s Mot., Ex. 2 (Aff. of Katherine Taylor) (" Taylor Aff." ) ¶ 9. Consequently, " the vacancies were cancelled." Id. The plaintiff discounts this business-related justification for the cancellation of the vacancies and posits instead that " Ms. Taylor's cancellation of the vacancies was motivated by retaliation and discrimination." Pl.'s Facts ¶ 41.

The plaintiff filed an informal EEO complaint on July 9, 2008, " alleging discrimination based on sex and race[,] and retaliation for her participation in the EEO complaint process, including removing the functions that control [the plaintiff's] pay grade level and the failure to adequately staff DPC." Compl. ¶ 25. Since there was no resolution of her informal complaint, the plaintiff filed her fourth formal EEO complaint on August 21, 2008. Id.

The plaintiff concedes that she was able to hire three graphic process operators in the 2009-2010 time period because a need was identified for those positions. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 42; Def.'s Facts ¶ 42; Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 21-5, at 213-16.

4. 2008 Performance Evaluation

The plaintiff's " Summary Rating" in her performance evaluation for 2008 was " exceeds

Page 144

expectation," which is the second highest available rating under " Outstanding," based upon a score of 67 out of 75 on the individual goals in her performance plan for that review period. Def.'s Facts ¶ 21; Compl. ¶ 17; Def.'s Mot., Ex. 12 (Summary Rating Form), ECF No. 21-8. The plaintiff contends that these scores are " inappropriate and undeserved," Pl.'s Facts ¶ 21, and disputes the justification given by her immediate supervisor, Walter Wingo, for the ratings.

With respect to the first goal, Mr. Wingo said that the plaintiff failed to ensure that the 7B cards of one of her subordinate supervisors were up-to-date and that corrective actions were timely. Def.'s Facts ¶ 23; Taylor Dep., ECF No. 21-7, at 48-50; Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 21-5, at 96-98. The plaintiff does not appear to dispute the fact that the required documentation was incomplete for a DPC employee, but rather disagrees about whether she should be held responsible for the lapse. The plaintiff contends that she " was not responsible for the 7B cards of employees directly supervised by her subordinate supervisors," but only for those employees " she directly supervised." Pl.'s Facts ¶ 23.

With respect to the second goal, Mr. Wingo informed the plaintiff that she did not include records reporting the " percent time" operators spent on " printer operation and job handling; hand-finishing; [and] Digipath utilization" in her evaluation binder. Def.'s Facts ¶ 24; Taylor Dep., ECF No. 21-7, at 53-55; Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 21-5, at 88-89. The plaintiff asserts that " [t]his was not true," and states that she had reported the operators' time on a log sheet in terms of the numbers of hours worked. Pl.'s Opp'n at 7; Pl. Decl. ¶ 38. The plaintiff concedes that her performance plan plainly required reporting the number of hours as a percentage of time worked on each particular task but contends that any failure to report the hours as dictated by the performance plan had previously been excused by Ms. Taylor. Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 24-1, 87:13-88:5; Pl. Decl. 38; Pl.'s Opp'n at 7 (Ms. Taylor " had told Ms. Warner that reporting hours without a percentage was acceptable." ); Pl.'s Facts ¶ 24 (plaintiff maintained the records " in hours, per Ms. Taylor's instructions" ).

Finally, with respect to the third goal, Mr. Wingo told the plaintiff that " she did not submit written standards and ratings for Graphic Processor Operators and a job description proposal for Graphic Processor Operator, Pre-flight Specialist" by the August 30, 2008 deadline set out in the performance plan. Pl.'s Opp'n at 7; Pl. Decl. ¶ 39. The plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to hand-over to any supervisor a copy of the job description by the deadline

Page 145

of August 30, 2008, but takes the position that the " performance plan did not require her to do so" and her supervisors never asked for it. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 25. According to Mr. Wingo, the position description should have been turned over to him by the deadline stated in the performance plan, and he told the plaintiff that. Wingo Dep., ECF No. 24-8, at 78. She contends that she fulfilled this performance plan goal because she had completed the job description by the deadline and had included this ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.